Raptor

Before I begin, let me just say the film is bad. There's no need in saying why. It's just bad. Bad writing, directing, special effects, acting, you name it. BUT the movie does have two things going for it: the briefly exposed breasts of the beautiful and surgically-enhanced Lorissa McComas, and the star power of one Eric Roberts. I mean it, how can you not enjoy an Eric Roberts movie? Yeah the movie may be crap on a stick, but Roberts hams scenes up to the point you just have to laugh. I rent every Eric Roberts movie that I can find. The guy is classic. Years from now people will remember Eric as the king of straight-to-video and it's a title he really deserves. Anybody who can act with a straight face in a movie that has a muppet for a raptor is a genius.

The only reason there is a question mark in parenthesis is NOT because I haven't seen every film released in 2001 thus far. It's because this film was only made PARTLY in 2001. The rest of it was stolen from Roger Corman's OTHER dinosaur films, Carnosaur 1-3.

I have a confession to make. "Carnosaur 2" is perhaps one of my favorite B-movies. It borrows so much from James Cameron's "Aliens" it's not even funny. But I love it. I can't explain exactly why. It just WORKS for me. I liked the sets, I liked the cinematography, I liked how they borrowed from "Aliens". It's all a bit ironic that Cameron at one point was an understudy of Corman's, with films like "Battle Beyond the Stars" (1980).

I own the Carnosaur trilogy on DVD, and the most I can say for part one is that it has moments. The most I can say for the third is that it took me five years to find it watchable.

Now we have "Raptor," which does NOT continue that series. Instead, it borrows ENTIRE scenes from the Carnosaur Trilogy and BUILDS a movie around it. And somehow Roger Corman was able to get Eric Roberts and Corbin Bernsen to do it. Now, I'm not saying either Roberts or Bernsen are at any kind of career high. But they were both at one point what could be called RESPECTABLE actors. Not here. Sure, actors react to effects they won't even see while filming all the time. Here, however, they are reacting to mismatched footage from films that are between five and eight years old. There's even a sherrif whose costume was modeled directly after a character in "Carnosaur 1." Apparently it made too much sense to get the original guy back.

When "Raptor" was announced I was a wee bit excited. I was however disappointed when Corman said that they'd be using the old dinosaur models from "Carnosaur." Apparently Corman decided after this interview was conducted that he wouldn't even do that. And its not that he couldn't find an FX crew to do it. The script for this was clearly written keeping in mind that the story had to be built around pre-existing stock footage.

Don't compare this to Ed Wood. Ed did better than this. At least he only used the stock footage of Bela once, in one film. There are ways of incorporating stock footage into a movie, and "Raptor" takes this frowned-upon technique to a new low. Even if you liked "Carnosaur 3: Primal Species," stay away from "Raptor."

Oy vey... Jurrasic Park got Corman-ized. As usual the plot is wafer thin, from 1 foot tall dinosaurs that weigh 150 pounds and leave tracks bigger than they are, to inexplicable science which uses lasers to keep the dinosaurs in check and poultry trucks which have chickens loose in cages large enough for big dogs (I've seen chicken trucks they are all in cages the size of shoe boxes). And all that is in the first 15 minutes of this disaster of a film. All the male actors are imbeciles (thinking a grizzly might be loose in the desert, constantly dropping items to give the raptor an easy kill) and the female actors all look like they just came from a modeling shoot for Fredrick's of Hollywood. The raptor itself is the worst thing since the Hobgoblins (from the movie of the same name), it looks like they had a hand puppet version and a plastic model for the "motion" shots. If you want a good movie to sit around and heckle MST3K style, this is gold. If you want competent film making and good acting... don't watch a Roger Corman film. Acting gets a 4 out 10, some of the players upon this stage did try. Story gets a 2 out of 10, it reads like a drunken storytelling session gone bad. Special effects gets a 2 out of 10, I've seen worse, but not many.

Raptor is simply a scion of 1950's cheap monster pictures. It's fun. The cast does a fair job. There are two real beauties in it. Who wouldn't want to ogle Melissa Brasselle and Lorissa McComas? The special effects are laughable, but isn't that all part of the heritage that we enjoy?

I think people expect too much from D movies these days. [Shades of "Horror of Party Beach"!] A cheap, low-budget picture is still what it was. If you enjoy the ambience of penurious production values, a Swiss cheese plot, stunning beauties, and the amateruish action scenes; then you have succeeded in comprehending the "Zen" of Raptor. I always watch it when it comes on cable. One of my favorite parts is when Lorissa McComas comes out of her coma [more shades- of "Them"] and starts ranting about the "big lizard". And the competing special ops squads are a riot. Where did they dredge up those uniforms? Remember when they just went to army surplus?

It's just a fun, cheap movie; and anyone who loves monster pictures should enjoy it at some level. Give it a try!

My brother-in-law and his wife brought the movie over one night to watch on video. This should have given me the first clue that it would be horrible. It was. From the very first frame to the last this movie is terrible. It does not even quite register as a "B" movie. Maybe an N or a P. One of the worst 5 movies I've ever seen. From the rubber raptor-on-a-stick to the still-breathing corpses in the car to the beyond horrible closing lines, this movie isn't worth watching if you've received it for free.

Skip this one altogether--unless you want to play Mystery Science Theatre with your friends, it will provide good ammunition.